Standing Committee G

[Mr. Edward O'Hara in the Chair]

Fire and Rescue Services Bill

Clause 7 - Fire-fighting

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 27, in 
clause 7, page 5, line 6, leave out 'and property' and insert 
 ', property and the environment'.—[Mr. Hammond.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Nick Raynsford: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. O'Hara. It will be a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. If you will allow me, I would like to make a short announcement that may be of interest to members of the Committee. I wish to inform you and the Committee that I intend to table a small number of technical Government amendments to clauses that we will reach in later stages of our discussions. I plan to table them before we meet again on Tuesday, 24 February and I will ensure that you and members of the Committee are sent a copy of them next week, so that members have plenty of time to consider them before they are discussed.
 May I also mention in the same breath that the Government were asked in earlier sittings whether the amendment on public inquiries that I undertook on Tuesday to consider might be prepared in time for Report. I cannot guarantee that we will complete the work in time, but it is certainly our intention to do so if possible. 
 That brings me back to the point we reached when we adjourned this morning. On amendment No. 27, proposed by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), I was pointing out that clause 7(1)(a) already requires a fire and rescue authority to make provision for dealing with all types of fire. Hon. Members will note that clause 11 gives explicit authority to a fire and rescue authority to equip for and respond to a situation that causes or is likely to cause harm to the environment. Clause 7(1)(b) retains the existing requirement for a fire and rescue authority to make provision for saving life and property from fires. 
 Amendment No. 27 would add protection of the environment to the requirement. In our view, that is unnecessary. That is not to say that the Government have no regard for the environment or seek to downgrade its importance—far from it—but the amendment could have adverse consequences for the deployment of resources. For example, if a fire and rescue authority were under a duty to make provision for even the smallest fire on, say, open land and to ensure that it could discharge its duty, it could feel obliged to purchase specialist equipment—for 
 example, a plane designed to scoop and drop water on fires—that is disproportionate to the nature of the risk. 
 Historically, it has been a matter for a fire and rescue authority to decide whether it responds to a fire on, for example, common land, where the primary risk is to the environment. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that many authorities do indeed deal with such fires on moorland and heathland, but until now that has been done by stretching the boundaries of existing legislation. 
 Clause 11 gives clear authority to equip for and respond to any incidents where there is a risk to the environment. That would include fires and would allow for the provision of specialist equipment, but it is for an authority to decide what is a proportionate and adequate response to local needs and priorities, taking into account risks assessed in its integrated risk management plans. 
 Fire and rescue authorities already follow good practice in respect of the environmental impact of dealing with fires and other incidents. Such matters fall within the statement of operational good practice introduced by Her Majesty's inspectorate of fire services in 2001, which all fire and rescue authorities follow. 
 Amendment No. 27 would place an unnecessary requirement on fire and rescue authorities and could have adverse consequences and create issues around liability. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Philip Hammond: I, too, am delighted to have the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr. O'Hara. I am a little disappointed by the Minister's response, because I thought that he would want to take the opportunity to place on record that, as indicated in the Civil Contingencies Bill, the Government regard protecting the environment as equally important as protecting property, if not protecting life. Some of the more lurid dangers that the Minister painted are more imagined that real. Unlike him, I do not envisage the problem of fire authorities having grossly to misallocate resources to respond to threats to the environment alone.
 There will be circumstances, as I said in my opening remarks, in which the threat to property must be balanced against the threat to the environment. I fear that the fact that the statutory duty relates to property only, and that there is no statutory duty relating to the environment—there is merely a permissive power under clause 11, as the Minister said—will mean that fire authorities are invariably constrained to act in the way that will enable them to discharge their duty to protect property, and that that may have adverse consequences for the environment. The example that I gave earlier was hosing down a building that contained contaminated material in order to put out a fire, while knowing full well that the contaminants would be washed out of the building and damage the environment. It is a question of giving people the opportunity to make balanced judgments. 
 I was not prepared for a confrontation with the Minister on this. I nurtured some hope that he might at least indicate that he would like to get some wording about the environment into clause 7. I will read carefully what he has said and will see if we cannot draft something tighter to deal with the environmental fall-out from fires that involve risks to property and life. That would help me to achieve my aim, while cutting away from the Minister the lurid defence that the proposal would require all fire authorities to devote all their resources to dealing with fires on open heathland, which is certainly not what I intended to convey. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 28, in
clause 7, page 5, line 10, leave out 'normal requirements' and insert 
 'requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate, after taking into consideration any arrangements which the authority has entered into under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16.'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 30, in
clause 8, page 5, line 27, leave out 'normal requirements' and insert 
 'requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate, after taking into consideration any arrangements which the authority has entered into under the provisions of sections 13, 15 and 16.'.

Philip Hammond: These two amendments deal with the same issue in relation to clauses 7 and 8. The clauses require the authorities to
''secure the provision of the personnel, services and equipment necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements''.
 In the case of clause 7, ''normal requirements'' relates to firefighting obligations and, in the case of clause 8, to road traffic accident obligations. ''Normal requirements'' seems a rather ambiguous term. These are probing amendments. They tighten up the language and we wait with interest to see how the Minister reacts. Will he tell us that inserting the wording in the amendments would result in something different from what he has in mind when he uses the term ''normal requirements''? 
 It is important that account is taken of the arrangements entered into under clauses 13, 15 and 16, which relate to the authority's reinforcement arrangements, any arrangements that it has with third parties for providing assistance and, under clause 16, any arrangements that it has entered into with other parties—third parties or other fire and rescue authorities—to discharge any of its functions. Clearly, the optimally efficient operation of the service overall requires that each authority makes the provision that is required after taking into account those other arrangements. 
 We certainly advocate—we will come to other amendments that will underline this—an approach that encourages fire authorities, where appropriate, to engage third parties or work with other fire and rescue authorities to deliver specialist services or services that require a critical delivery mass to make them economic and efficient. Part of the purpose of amendments Nos. 28 and 30 is to emphasise the importance of those 
 arrangements, and to make it clear to fire authorities that the requirement to provide services, personnel and equipment directly will be reduced to the extent that they have entered into proper arrangements under clauses 13, 15 and 16. I hope that the Minister will at least accept the spirit of the amendments, even if he does not like the precise wording.

Nick Raynsford: Amendments Nos. 28 and 30 would qualify what a fire and rescue authority must take account of when determining what constitutes the appropriate level of people, equipment and services to discharge its duty to extinguish fires and to respond to road traffic accidents.
 Clause 7(2)(a) re-enacts in a modern form the existing wording in section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947. It retains the requirement that a fire and rescue authority, when making arrangements for securing the requisite resources—that is, people and equipment—to discharge its duty to deal with fires, should meet efficiently all normal requirements. Clause 8(2)(a) replicates that requirement on a fire and rescue authority with regard to the new duty for dealing with road traffic accidents. 
 The operation of the word ''normal'' is important and is certainly not ambiguous, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge suggested. It is widely understood within fire and rescue authorities and is regarded by the Local Government Association as a tried and trusted formula for defining responsibility in terms of limiting liability. As we all know, we live in a litigious age and there are significant implications. Ordinarily, a breach of a statutory duty does not give rise to private law claims because the fire and rescue authority is expected only to equip to meet efficiently all normal requirements. We should be very careful before making any changes to that well tried, tested and understood arrangement because they could have significant consequences for the future liabilities of authorities. 
 The inclusion of the word ''normal'' recognises that it is for an authority to consider all its functions, priorities, available resources and arrangements, and, having done so, to decide what is an efficient service to provide on a day-to-day basis.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that the Minister has explained how normal requirements differ from requirements that it is reasonable to anticipate. It is not clear that clause 7(2)(a) requires the authority to make
''provision of the personnel, services and equipment''
 even in the discharge of functions that it has contracted out under clause 16.

Nick Raynsford: During an earlier debate, the hon. Gentleman pressed the case for what he described as a more objective measure than the authority being able itself to determine what it regarded as appropriate. The words in the amendment,
''requirements which it is reasonable to anticipate'',
 have exactly that characteristic. They would be open to interpretation by others because they would be a departure from the existing wording, which has been in place for more than 50 years, is well understood and 
 has been considered by the courts in reaching judgments that can inform the way in which fire authorities discharge their responsibilities. 
 It would be a serious move by the Committee and the House to make changes, when there is no perceived need to do so and when there is no wish on the part of fire authorities or, indeed, other bodies to do so, simply on the basis of the hon. Gentleman's concern that the wording may be a little ambiguous. As I understand it, the fire community would prefer to keep the existing wording rather than to change it as the hon. Gentleman suggests. 
 I recognise the spirit of the amendment but it could, arguably, weaken the duty because clause 13 places an expectation on fire and rescue authorities to enter into mutual assistance arrangements and clauses 15 and 16 offer other service delivery options. However, an authority should not be required to give them undue weight. We believe that that such matters should be determined locally, with all relevant factors, such as integrated risk management plans, being taken into account. As I have said, there is no problem with the current use of the word ''normal'', which has wide recognition and support in the service. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw his amendment.

Hugo Swire: Does the Minister envisage that, with the new combined fire and control centres that he hopes to create, entailing mutual support between one force and another—that already exists to a certain extent—a problem could arise between a largely retained service, such as the one in Devon, and other services in the neighbourhood, which have fewer retained firemen and more full-time firemen? Could there be a conflict? If so, surely the amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge is better because it creates a looser arrangement.

Nick Raynsford: Arrangements are generally good between authorities that employ predominantly retained firefighters and those that employ solely, or a majority of, full-time firefighters. There were some barriers in the past, partly because of the Fire Brigades Union's opposition to mixed crewing, but that is changing. There will be more flexible arrangements throughout the country and a strong emphasis on people working together.
 By giving undue weight to reinforcement arrangements or assistance arrangements, which are covered by later clauses, the amendment could weaken the duty. For that reason, together with the one that I emphasised—that the word ''normal'' is well understood and the fire service does not wish to change it because it provides some protection for authorities against undesirable and questionable litigation—it seems wise to stay with the existing formulation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: It is interesting to hear the Minister cite, as the conclusive argument, the fact that the fire authorities do not want to change the system therefore it should remain. I hope that fire authorities' views on
 issues such as the Secretary of State's appointment of members to combined fire authority boards will carry equal weight in the Minister's mind when we consider those matters later.

Nick Raynsford: We have finished that one.

Philip Hammond: I assure the Minister that we shall come back to it.
 As the Minister was speaking, it occurred to me that we must interpret the word ''normal'' in its context. In 1947 the normal requirements that fire authorities were being asked to prepare for must have meant peacetime requirements, not the exceptional exigencies of running a fire service in wartime. The phrase ''normal requirements'' suggests to me, 55 years on, a backward-looking approach to what is normal. What have we provided in the past? What has been needed in the past? 
 My purpose in substituting ''normal requirements'' with reasonably anticipated requirements was precisely to address the point that the Minister made: we live in a fast-changing world in which we must provide not just for what has normally been required over the past 55 years, but for what we can reasonably expect to be required in the future, going beyond fire to the terrorist threat of non-fire emergencies. That is precisely what the Minister wants to do in the Bill. He must consider not only the kinds of emergency that the service has had to respond to in the past—I do not want to rehearse a discussion that we had on Tuesday, horrific as some of those incidents have been—but, as he reminded us, the possibly more serious and horrific incidents that may occur in future. Therefore, he has taken on board, in the context of clause 9 emergencies, the fact that we are moving into a different era and need to look forward. Should we not do the same in relation to clause 7?

Nick Raynsford: As the hon. Gentleman knows, clause 9 covers more extreme circumstances, which we shall come to in due course. We are dealing with clause 7, which covers a fire authority's normal firefighting responsibilities. Although I hear the hon. Gentleman's case and understand the logic, I do not hear any clamour for change to the well tried and tested definition of the normal expectation of a fire authority, which is to respond to its core function, often described in the Committee, of fighting and putting out fires.

Philip Hammond: The Minister well knows that clause 9 refers to everything other than the functions that fire authorities have under clauses 7 and 8. He throws down a clear challenge to me to find practitioners who appreciate my argument. I hope to rise to that challenge between now and Report.
 The Minister talked down the significance of clauses 15 and 16. We will come to those clauses in due course. I see the potential for the arrangements to become very significant and change the nature of fire authorities' requirements for personnel, services and equipment. 
 I hoped to clarify whether the level of provision that authorities are directly required to make meets normal 
 requirements after taking into account any arrangements made under other clauses. I do not see that caveat; I see an obligation to secure the provision of personnel, services and equipment necessary to meet all normal requirements. 
 I was looking for confirmation from the Minister that when a part of the function has been contracted out under clause 16, it is common sense not to oblige the fire authority to secure provision of the services, equipment and personnel. Although I am happy to withdraw the amendment, I will return to the matter so that I receive reassurances from the Minister. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I have a couple of points to put to the Minister. We had an interesting debate, which you may not have had a chance to read, Mr. O'Hara, about ''economy, efficiency and effectiveness.'' ''Efficiently'' now stands alone in subsection (2)(a), without any reference to effectiveness and economy. Will the Minister explain the significance of that?
 Subsection (2)(c) states that an authority must 
''make arrangements for dealing with calls for help and for summoning personnel''.
 Rather tantalisingly, that looks to me like a requirement on a fire and rescue authority to provide a control room and methodology for handling calls from the public. I would support that, but the Minister has a different agenda that would remove the responsibility from fire authorities and centralise it in regional control rooms. In light of his proposals, what does paragraph (c) mean? 
 Will the Minister explain whether subsection (2)(e) is a new obligation on fire authorities? Is the obligation to 
''make arrangements . . . to prevent or limit damage to property resulting from''
 firefighting actions about not exposing fire authorities to further litigation, or is it about presenting in a different form an obligation that they are understood to have already?

Nick Raynsford: Essentially, clause 7 re-enacts the existing statutory duty under section 1 of the Fire Services Act 1947. The traditional intervention role that it defines remains a core function.
 An authority is required to make arrangements for the efficient discharge of its duty in normal circumstances—in particular, to secure equipment, personnel and services. My layman's understanding is that efficiency is the right emphasis in the context because the authority will work to meet its obligations to ensure the benefits of efficiency, economy and effectiveness more widely, and, in any case, it will do that under the duties spelled out in the Bill. The use of the term ''efficiently'' is simply a reflection of the wish to have the authority act efficiently to give effect to its obligations. 
 The second question that the hon. Gentleman asked about clause 7(2)(c) was whether there is an implication that existing fire authorities should be responsible for having their own control room. That is not the case. It is the same provision that applies under the existing definition in the 1947 Act. It simply requires the authority to make arrangements for dealing with calls, and that can be done either by running its own control room or by having a joint control room with other authorities. Joint control rooms have been established in certain areas. Indeed, the whole of London is moving to a single control room, although admittedly that is a single fire authority. Nevertheless, there is a wide range provisions on control rooms in existing arrangements and they are not changed by the Bill. 
 The third item the hon. Gentleman asked about was the arrangement for ensuring that reasonable steps are taken to prevent or limit damage to property resulting from action taken for the purposes mentioned in subsection (1). That is an existing duty that fire authorities understand and under which they operate. He asked about the potential for causing damage to the environment in certain circumstances. I simply say to him that the measure replicates provisions in the 1947 Act. 
 I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman the reassurances he sought. I commend the clause to the Committee. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Road traffic accidents

Richard Younger-Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 79, in
clause 8, page 5, line 35, at end add— 
 '(3) The Secretary of State shall make a direction that a fire officer or firefighter shall be responsible for the management of a road traffic accident except where there is a police officer present.'.
 The Minister said that he had made a concession on inquiries, for which we are grateful. I hope he will also concede that there is room to amend the Bill along the lines of the amendment. 
 One issue that was dealt with in the 1947 Act but is not covered in the Bill is responsibility in the case of a fire. We intend to table another amendment to reinstate that provision. Firefighters and fire officers to whom we have spoken have asked who is responsible and what is the order of responsibility in the case of, for example, a road traffic accident. Our amendment simply says that if a police officer is not present, the senior fire officer should be responsible. If he was first on the scene, he would know that he should take responsibility until the police arrive. If other services arrive, someone would be in charge. The amendment is fairly straightforward and would certainly simplify life for those who have to operate as part of a group.

Philip Hammond: As the hon. Gentleman was so brief, I shall intervene on him rather than seeking to catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara. Is there any significance
 in his choice of mechanism of imposing on the Secretary of State an obligation to ''make a direction''? Why not simply write the requirement—if it is at all necessary, which I doubt—into the face of the Bill?

Richard Younger-Ross: Our understanding was that a direction would be the better way forward. I am not a parliamentary draftsman, so I listened to and heeded what others said to me on this issue. There is no particular reason why it should not be written straight in. I hope that the Minister will give a direction on all the responsibilities and all the circumstances, because, with the new responsibilities, the Minister has created far more complex situations—involving a number of fire services and other services coming together in different circumstances.

Hugo Swire: This is an interesting amendment. Can the hon. Gentleman not foresee that a road traffic accident might well have other implications during a civil contingency, whereupon somebody from the armed forces might be better placed to take overall command? Does the proposal not unduly limit the flexibility of the Secretary of State to meet such an eventuality?

Richard Younger-Ross: Part of the purpose of proposing a direction is to give the Secretary of State flexibility in that matter.

Hugo Swire: There is no flexibility.

Richard Younger-Ross: It gives him a direction—Ministers can change directions. The purpose is to spark a debate and to ask whether the Minister will consider the idea. The points are fairly clear.

David Drew: I shall be very brief. I am delighted, as always, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. O'Hara. I raise this point now, but I am sure that I could equally have done so during the stand part debate. I have noticed when talking about road traffic accidents to those in the fire, ambulance and police services that there is an ongoing concern about who in this litigious society takes responsibility.
 As much as we could never write such a provision in tablets of stone, I wonder whether we are being simplistic and not looking at the way in which the three emergency services must co-ordinate. It is all well and good making decisions that in the light of day appear logical, but they will not always prove to be effective at the site of an accident. I seek some clarification from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on the degree to which the proposal would protect firefighters, ambulance staff and police. Increasingly, RTAs are the subject of all manner of controversy.

Nick Raynsford: I must say to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross)—I hope that I am now pronouncing his constituency correctly.

Richard Younger-Ross: It is ''Tinbridge''.

Nick Raynsford: Is it ''Tin''? I thought that it was ''Teen''? There is a dispute between the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Members from Devon.
 As and when a third Devon Member, my hon. Friend and Parliamentary Private Secretary, the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) returns, I shall ask her to adjudicate. I am extremely relieved that the hon. Gentleman does not represent the constituency of one of his colleagues with whom I served on a previous Committee. It took me a great deal more time to learn to say Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, so at least his has the benefit of being a single word.

Philip Hammond: I hope that the Minister will reflect on his policy of creating a south-west region in England, given that he has just seen a demonstration of how hon. Members from opposite sides of the same river cannot even agree on how it is pronounced.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The Minister will return to the point.

Nick Raynsford: I stand reproved, and will return immediately to the point.
 The hon. Member for Teignbridge should not assume that because we have acceded to his suggestion for an amendment on another matter that we will automatically do so again. I am much less persuaded of the need for change, but I will explain why that is not appropriate. 
 Clause 8(1)(b) recognises the role of a fire and rescue authority in dealing with road traffic accidents. That goes beyond initial rescue and includes protecting the public from the immediate aftermath. Typically, that involves dealing with spillage of hazardous substances. However, the clause also recognises that the duty placed on a fire and rescue authority must be proportionate to its skills and expertise and, therefore, gives individual authorities the ability to make a judgment on what action is reasonable. Amendment No. 79 would go well beyond that. It would require the Secretary of State to direct that firefighters take responsibility for managing the scene of all road traffic accidents unless the police are present. No account would be taken of the circumstances. Such a direction would have to be so general as to be meaningless.

Philip Hammond: I am glad that I did not catch your eye, Mr. O'Hara, because I might have made a fool of myself. I was under the impression—the Minister will correct me—that there was already a hierarchy and that in the absence of a police officer the senior fire office at a scene would automatically be considered in charge.

Nick Raynsford: If the hon. Gentleman had lingered a moment, I would have got to the relevant point. There are, of course, good arrangements between the emergency services. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) highlighted the role of the military in certain circumstances. Those arrangements generally work well. So, there is an understanding between the emergency services.
 The point about the amendment is that it would cut across that by creating a formal responsibility in circumstances that might be inappropriate. I recognise that there are occasions when it would be appropriate for firefighters to undertake wider preventive measures, such as coning off a lane of a motorway 
 or closing a road. There are, of course, many examples where such action would fall properly to the police. That type of co-operation already takes place and is a matter of judgment on the ground. It is not appropriate to write it into legislation. 
 We have received no pressure from fire and rescue authorities to go further on their duties in dealing with road traffic accidents. In fact, the LGA has said that the new duty must make it for the authority to determine what is reasonable in protecting the public after a road traffic accident. That is what subsection (1)(b) does. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I think that the Minister said that there was no need to give firefighters more formal powers on the management of road traffic. Does not the Civil Contingencies Bill specifically give firefighters a power to direct traffic? During the flooding last January in my constituency, the absence of any enforcement powers for firefighters to control road traffic and prevent vehicles passing down roads that were nominally closed due to flooding was a serious problem when they were the only ones on the scene. There was clearly a defect in legislation.

Edward O'Hara: Order. Before the Minister responds, I should point out that we are not discussing the Civil Contingencies Bill.

Nick Raynsford: Firefighters already have powers to close roads if necessary. The circumstances that the hon. Gentleman highlighted would be precisely those in which, if a fire appliance were first on the scene and felt it necessary in the interest of public safety to do so, could close a road. As I have pointed out, there are effective operational protocols between the emergency services for dealing with those matters and it is not appropriate to include it all in the Bill.
 In relation to those powers, I refer also to clause 43, which we will not reach for a while yet. The hon. Gentleman may wish to use the half-term recess to study its provisions. I think that that will satisfy him that there are more than adequate powers for firefighters when necessary . I hope that the hon. Member for Teignbridge will recognise that the existing arrangements work. There is no pressure to change them. There is an understanding about the role of firefighters, and they have powers where necessary to deal with such situations. In our judgment, it would be a step too far to follow the line that he suggested.

Richard Younger-Ross: I hear the Minister's argument and I will be happy to withdraw the amendment. However, before I do so, I ask him to consider the fact that the pecking order at the moment is set out in the 1947 Act, and that, effectively, it will be removed by the Bill. Some fire officers have concerns that the informal arrangements have not worked in certain incidents. Hon. Members debated the same issue in relation to the police during consideration in Committee of the Traffic Management Bill. Before Report, will the Minister have a think about the matter? Having done a little more research, we shall certainly bring it up again.

Jim Knight: On a technical point, the hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that in the forthcoming Energy Bill there will be an opportunity to right a wrong.

Edward O'Hara: Order. I am a bit concerned about the proliferation of legislation that is being introduced into the Committee. We are debating the Fire and Rescue Services Bill.

Jim Knight: I simply say that the nuclear police have no authority to deal with RTAs, even though they have police badges and people expect them to stop and help. The amendment would put them in a difficult position; as things stand, they have no mutual aid powers.

Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point. I am considering the police in general rather than specific instances. I suppose that the same conditions would apply to railway police. People would not expect them to take charge at the scene of a road traffic accident. That would not be logical. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: This is a welcome clause, which gives statutory responsibilities to fire authorities in respect of road traffic accidents. As the Minister said on Second Reading, most people would be astonished to discover that, for the moment, fire authorities have no such statutory responsibility.
 It is important that we note before we progress that the Government are not, as some of their rhetoric suggests, placing the responsibility for road traffic accidents on an equal footing with the responsibility for firefighting. A lot of what I have heard suggests that firefighting, road traffic duties and responding to non-conventional emergencies are to be put on an equal statutory footing—and they are not. We have particular concerns, to which we shall revert in due course, about the scope for charging for road traffic accidents. Fire is clearly being left in a category of its own as one of several statutory duties placed on fire and rescue authorities for which no charges can be levied, but the new areas of statutory duty, such as road traffic accidents, will not be similarly ring-fenced against the potential for future charging. 
 There is a difference in the extent of preparation that is required to deal with firefighting and road traffic accidents, which is another distinction between the two areas. Questions arise in my mind about the use of others to carry out functions. The Government clearly envisage, as we shall discuss later, the possibility that some functions of fire authorities are carried out in certain circumstances by others. One can see the attraction of that, particularly in remote areas. Collaboration with the police might be more important in dealing with road traffic accidents than it is in firefighting because the police have equipment for dealing with some of the work that the fire services do at the scene. A later clause prohibits the employment of the police. When we reach it, I will ask the Minister to consider whether it is still a 
 relevant provision given the way in which fire and police services might work together. 
 Overall, we welcome the general thrust of clause 8 and are pleased to see that the fire services' role in dealing with road traffic accidents is being placed on a statutory footing. If that is not quite an equal footing to firefighting, at least the importance of the role is being recognised.

Richard Younger-Ross: We debated fire safety and what fire officers can do to prevent fires. Does the Minister envisage that fire authorities will have a role in road traffic safety? A number of senior fire officers have asked that question. They would welcome that power, should it be given to them.

Nick Raynsford: The clause is an important part of the new statutory framework for the fire and rescue service. It places a duty on all fire and rescue authorities to make provision for rescuing people from road traffic accidents and protecting them from serious harm in the aftermath of such accidents. Historically, the risk of fire was the trigger for attendance by firefighters at a road traffic accident. However, while advances in vehicle design have seen a decrease in the incidence of fires following accidents, calls to free people from wreckage and to deal with the aftermath of, for example, the spillage of hazardous substances have, sadly, increased dramatically. Fire and rescue authorities now rescue twice as many casualties from road traffic accidents as they do from fires. All fire and rescue authorities now deal with road traffic accidents. The clause puts what has become a mainstream function on a clear and appropriate statutory footing. That has been widely welcomed. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge welcomed the clause.
 As with clause 7, the fire and rescue authority is required to make arrangements for the efficient discharge of its duty to deal with road traffic accidents. In particular, it must ensure that equipment, personnel and services are available. Clause 8 also places an authority under an obligation to ensure that personnel are trained, that it has in place appropriate mechanisms for receiving calls—we have dealt with that—and that it can contact staff and obtain information necessary to exercise its functions. Those provisions closely mirror the duties in respect of firefighting. The hon. Gentleman should not be too concerned about the slight differences in the definition. They do not imply a downgrading of the road traffic accident element, which is a significant part of the role of fire and rescue authorities. 
 The hon. Member for Teignbridge raised the question of whether the fire and rescue services should take greater responsibility for road safety. That would be a step too far. It would run across existing arrangements and would involve considerable expectation of further activity by fire and rescue services at a time when they already have substantial obligations and responsibilities in other areas. We do not believe that it would be right to extend their functions in that area, although we recognise that they have an important role to play in ensuring that the 
 public are safeguarded in the event of road traffic accidents and during their aftermath. That is a hugely important role, but we do not see them taking over responsibility for road safety from others.

Philip Hammond: Although I cannot put my hands on it at the moment, I know from one of the briefings that I received that at least one fire authority interpreted the Bill as giving it powers to carry out road safety work. Is the Minister saying he does not want fire authorities to be the lead authority, or is he saying that it would be ultra vires for a fire authority to carry out such work?

Nick Raynsford: I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman. At this stage in the Committee, the proliferation of paper is such that it is not always possible to put one's hands on things at the right moment.
 I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is very much our view that fire and rescue authorities should not take the lead responsibility. However, we recognise that there are circumstances in which they have special expertise and skills to contribute to road safety, as well as fire safety, campaigns. However, it is important that a process of ill-thought-out mission-creep does not transform them into the lead authority in respect of road safety. We expect the fire rescue authorities, when discharging their duties, to take reasonable steps to limit damage to property resulting from their actions. That again mirrors the firefighting provisions.

David Drew: My right hon. Friend did not really answer my point on the hierarchy that almost exists between the different services, and I have a question on the back of that. Do all fire appliances have the necessary resources to ensure that they are properly equipped to deal with road traffic accidents? Areas such as mine, which have a high preponderance of retained firefighters, cannot, with the best will in the world, have the same level of kit. Will my right hon. Friend say something about that, as it is not in the Bill?

Nick Raynsford: I can say two things to my hon. Friend. First, existing operational protocols determine that, at road traffic accidents, the emergency service that is first on the scene can exercise a lead role. I expect that, in the world in which we live, there will be a growing need to define the circumstances in which there is interdependence between the services, for a variety of reasons. We believe that that is the right way forward, rather than putting a hierarchy in the Bill.
 Can my hon. Friend remind me of his second point?

David Drew: It was on resources. I asked my right hon. Friend whether the Bill should state that any fire appliance that has to deal with road traffic accidents must have sufficient resources because of the differing status of full-time firefighters and their equipment, and retained firefighters.

Nick Raynsford: The duty requires the authority to equip for, and respond to, a range of responsibilities, including road traffic accidents. That suggests a need to ensure adequate provision. It will be for the individual fire authority to determine how that is best deployed. There have been some interesting
 debates about whether there is a case for creating new rescue centres in critical locations close to parts of the road network where accidents occur regularly and where the presence of a team that can respond quickly might be effective in saving lives. Such a centre could be considered by the fire and rescue authority, which might want to discuss with the other emergency services the most co-ordinated approach to adopt.
 As regards the equipment to be carried by an individual appliance, again it is for the authority, in developing its integrated risk management plans, to consider how best to respond to the range of risks. 
 The Bill gives a general framework. The national framework, which we are publishing and will be given statutory effect by the Bill, goes much further in setting out our expectations. It is for the authorities, in defining their IRMPs, to set out how, locally, they can best respond to those challenges. 
 The Bill creates an important new duty, which sets the right basis for the service to plan ahead and make the necessary provision to contribute to the important work of saving lives and rescuing people from road traffic accidents. I hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 - Emergencies

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in
clause 9, page 5, line 42, at end insert 
 ', but such an order may only be made with the consent of each authority in the area of which such functions are to be discharged.'.
 The clause deals with the fourth category of responsibilities—an unspecified category of emergencies—to be placed on fire and rescue authorities, to be defined by order. We have received a draft order from the Minister, the first that the Government intend to make under the clause. I hope that we will be able to address it in the stand part debate. We have no problem with its general thrust, so the amendments that we have tabled now look slightly off-beam. I should make it clear that we did not have the privilege of seeing it before we tabled them. That does not make our amendments altogether redundant; it simply means that the first order drafted does not reflect any of the problems that concern us. 
 The Secretary of State has the power to specify a function over which a fire and rescue authority will have responsibility other than those functions that clauses 6 to 8 already confer. The power to confer that function over a wider area than the authority's own has grabbed our attention because, unlike in the draft order, it does not necessarily have to be done in a uniform way across all authorities. We are concerned about a situation in which a Secretary of State confers functions on an authority to be discharged over the area of many authorities. 
 In the case of a chemical containment, the Secretary of State might decide to designate one authority in a region, which would be his favoured unit of geography—I think the map on the Deputy Prime Minister's wall contains only that unit—as having the function of chemical spillage containment across the whole region. It is perhaps not a very good example, but it serves to illustrate my point. In such circumstances, we have questions about the responsibility of the host authority in whose territory those functions will be discharged and the financing mechanisms, which I will address later. 
 Amendment No. 31 specifically provides that the recipient authority in whose area the function was to be discharged should consent to the discharge of function by the other authority. We acknowledge that there is a perfectly sensible case for extra-territorial functioning by fire and rescue authorities, but it must be based on consent in a planned and agreed way. 
 The draft order simply confirms reciprocity in extra-territorial operations and that such assistance will be provided on request. Every fire authority is enjoined to render assistance to every other fire authority on request. We have absolutely no problem with that; it is the perfect formulation. However, the clause goes much further and allows the Secretary of State to make asymmetric arrangements without the consent of the recipient authority. 
 I will withdraw the amendment. If I do not, it will catch the draft order in an entirely inappropriate way. First, however, I want to hear the Minister's response to the wider concerns about any future orders that impose asymmetric obligations on authorities without the consent of the authorities who are the ''beneficiaries''.

Nick Raynsford: I am not sure that amendment No. 31 recognises how the clause will be used. I understand that it was tabled before the hon. Gentleman saw the draft order, as he explained, but it implies an obsessive view, which I am afraid we are becoming accustomed to hearing from the Conservative Opposition, about the ''regional threat'', as though a move toward regional co-operation on matters of resilience, which is what we are talking about, was undesirable. Most people who have looked carefully at how we are to enhance our resilience know that authorities that are organised on a regional basis, such as the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority, are far better placed than others to be able to respond as necessary to some of the potential threats that we must now make provision to face. It is in order to ensure that there is a comparable arrangement in all parts of England that we are requiring authorities to work together, through regional management boards, to put in place robust arrangements that can ensure regional resilience.

Philip Hammond: I am sure that the Minister would not want to mislead the Committee. I think that he has fallen into using the term ''resilience''. The draft order deals with not just anti-terrorism matters but issues such as major traffic accidents and flooding. Those are important emergencies, but I would not like the
 Minister to shelter behind the emotionally protective wall of anti-terrorist resilience.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should by now know that resilience does not refer specifically and solely to anti-terrorist work. It covers preparedness to deal with a range of eventualities, some of which may be the product of terrorism, some of which may be the product of natural disaster. It is important that we have in place robust arrangements to deal with flooding as well as a potential terrorist risk. That is the purpose of the framework that we are putting in place. As the hon. Gentleman will know from looking at the draft statutory instrument, there is a very clear indication in article 7:
''A fire and rescue authority which has specialist resources available to it must so far as is practicable use those resources outside its area in response to a reasonable request to do so from another fire and rescue authority''.
 I am sure that he would not object in any circumstances to that kind of situation. Equally, he will know that, in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incident, decontamination will not respect the borders between authorities. It would be bizarre in the extreme if it were impossible for an authority that had suitable specialist decontamination equipment to use it beyond its own borders. He must be aware of that. 
 We want to make it possible for fire and rescue authorities to act outside their areas where necessary, and to have the capability to carry out these functions anywhere in England. I want to put clearly on the record that we are talking not just about reciprocal arrangements with neighbouring authorities, because in certain extreme emergencies it would be necessary for resources to be deployed across a very wide area indeed, and that could involve equipment and personnel travelling a considerable distance across the country.

Philip Hammond: I am going to suggest to the Minister a way to cut his work load. The incidents that he is describing are emergencies as defined in the Civil Contingencies Bill, which so intimately interlocks with this Bill that we can scarcely avoid touching on it, and the ability for fire authorities to respond to a CBRN incident, for example, is surely already provided for in the Civil Contingencies Bill—as a first responder, they would be obliged to accept directions under that legislation. It is not necessary to repeat that provision in this Bill, which should surely be focused on the more routine, if very important, matters that the fire service must address.

Nick Raynsford: No, it is necessary for the provision to be consistent with the provision in the Civil Contingencies Bill. It is right that there should be consistencies between the two Bills. It would be absolutely wrong if the fire service had to look at two separate pieces of legislation to understand its obligations and duties. That is why we are setting out in this Bill the obligations that apply in relation to emergencies. Those emergencies, as we have already established, could be natural disasters or the result of terrorist incidents. They will require a larger-scale response and, in some cases, a specialist response, which will be delivered effectively only if it is possible
 to deploy resources from a much wider area than that directly affected. That is why these provisions are there. The hon. Gentleman may call them asymmetric obligations but they are common sense in the modern world, where we need to make provision for a range of eventualities that could require considerable deployment of resources.
 I will run through one or two possible scenarios. In the event of an emergency, we would envisage the appropriate response being the regional control room directing the most appropriately equipped fire and rescue authority to supply the equipment or personnel necessary to the area in which the incident had occurred. That would be no different to a control room directing the most appropriate fire and rescue authority to attend a fire, except that, for reasons of national resilience, one will be able to direct across boundaries. That must be sensible. 
 If, to use the example that the hon. Gentleman gave on Tuesday, there were a major incident in Surrey, under his amendment, a neighbouring authority such as London would be unable to assist unless Surrey consented to an order requiring London to act in the Surrey area. That would clearly be bureaucratic nonsense. I am surprised that he does not recognise that. I can understand where he is coming from because of the concern about regionalisation, but he is creating an obstacle.

Richard Younger-Ross: Is what the Minister has in mind that an authority where an incident takes place can often stick its head in the sand? I think of foot and mouth, where the vets thought that they were in control and it was only when the disasters happened that they realised that they were not. It is possible that a fire authority could do exactly the same.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will not pursue it, because I would risk being out of order if I strayed into the area of foot and mouth, but he is right that, sometimes, those directly affected are not as aware as they might be of the extent of their needs. The arrangements that we are putting in place will make it easier to ensure that appropriate assistance is provided, using the resources of fire and rescue authorities throughout the country to deal with circumstances that may require a response on that scale. For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will accept that his amendment is misconceived and agree to withdraw it.

Philip Hammond: I am not sure that the amendment is misconceived. I accept that it is poorly drafted in relation to the draft order that the Minister has now laid.
 I am not sure that I accept his example. There will be—there are—reinforcement arrangements between Surrey and London. However, it seems to me that a situation that allows an authority to enter another authority's area and begin operating without the formality of a request by the host authority is a recipe for confusion and disaster. The Minister says no but it strikes me that the relationship ought to be that the authority that has the problem—co-ordinated through a regional control room, if such a thing 
 exists—immediately recognises and requests the appropriate resources from other authorities. 
 We have no problem with that whatsoever but it is important to maintain the underlying principle that there is, for each area, an accountable fire and rescue authority that is responsible for dealing with incidents or making arrangements for doing so—to use the parliamentary draftsman's preferred terms—in their area. Ultimately, they must be accountable for that to the inhabitants of that area. Although there is no problem with the draft order that the Minister has laid, other orders that he has the power to make under the clause could give rise to some of the concerns that I have suggested. 
 As I said, I recognise that the amendment as drafted simply does not work in a world populated by the draft order that the Minister has published. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 9, page 6, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(3A) An order under this section conferring a function additional to its functions under sections 7 and 8 for which a fire and rescue authority must make provision shall also provide for the payment to that authority by the Secretary of State of sums calculated to meet the capital and recurring costs of the discharge of such functions.'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
 No. 33, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 12, at end insert— 
 '(3B) An order under this section conferring a function on a fire and rescue authority which is to be discharged outside the authority's area shall also provide for payment to the authority by all fire and rescue authorities in the area of which such functions are to be discharged of such contributions to the capital and recurring costs of the discharge of such functions as the Secretary of State shall determine are appropriate.'.
 No. 68, in 
clause 9, page 6, line 16, at end add— 
 '(6) When making an order under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall make payment to that authority for all reasonable additional, direct and indirect costs borne by that authority in following that order.'.

Philip Hammond: Again, the amendment, which provides for the Secretary of State to make payments to an authority on which he confers extra-territorial responsibilities, sits uncomfortably with the draft order. Clearly, the mutually reinforcing extra-territoriality that the draft order contemplates is not something that the Secretary of State should expect to pay for directly, but there is still an important point to consider.
 I believe that the Minister has implicitly accepted that the intention is to develop specialist resources within brigades—sorry, fire and rescue authorities. That is a sensible idea. They will deploy wherever they are needed but they will be financed in the ordinary course of events primarily by council tax payers in their home area. 
 The Secretary of State has made statements about directly financing specialist equipment for resilience purposes, but we need to go a little further than that. If Surrey fire and rescue were to be designated as the specialist CBRN fire service for the south-east region, hurtling off to Milton Keynes or Folkestone, to name but two possibilities, whenever a CBRN incident occurs in either of those places, there would be implications for the council tax payers of Surrey. 
 It seems appropriate to provide in the Bill that, if the Secretary of State confers specialist responsibilities that are to be prepared and exercised for the benefit of a much wider group of council tax payers, the council tax payers of the specialist authority should not end up bearing the cost. Therefore, amendment No. 32 seeks to impose on the Secretary of State an obligation to match the functions that he confers with funding of the capital and revenue costs of those functions. 
 Amendment No. 33 takes a slightly different approach in dealing with essentially the same problem—specialisation—and suggests that rather than payment by the Secretary of State there should be equitable arrangements for contributions from all the beneficiary authorities. To take a counter-case, if Surrey does not have to spend any money preparing to deal with a certain eventuality because Hampshire will ride to the rescue, it would be only right that the council tax payers in Surrey should make a contribution to the additional capital and revenue costs of the Hampshire fire and rescue authority in arranging for sufficient resources to deal with an incident in Surrey. An example of sensible lead authority arrangements might be where two or three authorities share a waterfront—an estuary area—and one of them undertakes the specialist inshore rescue facility on behalf of all of them. 
 Perhaps the Minister can reassure us that the Bill contains such provision elsewhere. I concede that clause 16 deals with reimbursement, but I do not believe that it deals with reimbursement for functions conferred by clause 9. I look to the Minister to explain how the burden would be equitably distributed or, if it is not to be equitably distributed among council tax payers, borne entirely on his own broad shoulders.

Richard Younger-Ross: Much has already been said by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Amendment No. 68 would do much the same as amendment No. 32. It would be wrong in principle if an authority had to bear additional costs, which could be considerable in some instances, in travelling to other parts of the country or in purchasing other equipment. Amendment No. 68, which may or may not be perfectly worded, would provide that the Secretary of State should pick up the additional costs. I would be happy not to press my amendment in favour of amendment No. 32, or it may be simpler the other way around, but I hope that the Minister will make it clear who will bear the costs in such circumstances.

Nick Raynsford: The amendments would require fire and rescue authorities to be compensated for carrying out any duties that may be specified in an order under
 the clause. As the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will be able to see from the proposed draft order that we have supplied, we envisage that those duties, encompassing such emergencies as flooding and chemical spills, are ones for which the authority is already geared up. Authorities have generally acquired a wide range of equipment and experience for dealing with such challenges. We are simply creating a clear legislative framework to enable them to plan for and respond to such emergencies.
 The new challenge is responding to the increased terrorist threat. We recognise that, and we have made appropriate financial provision. We are allocating £188 million over three years. That includes not just the capital costs of the equipment but the training, which is already under way, for the mass decontamination equipment being issued to fire authorities throughout the country. We are also in discussion with the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association and the Local Government Association about the revenue implications of responding to new dimension incidents. 
 It does not matter where the work is carried out—whether in the fire and rescue authority's own area or that of another—the equipment, the training and the additional funding to cover resource costs will still have been provided by the Secretary of State. Therefore, we feel that the provisions in the amendment are unnecessary, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister talked about £180 million. Am I correct in saying that that figure is time-limited? The provisions that we want in the Bill would cover a longer period.

Nick Raynsford: The whole basis of what I was saying is that authorities are already under obligation to equip themselves and provide for a range of duties. They are doing so, and they have done so. There is an existing framework for supporting that, which includes both revenue grant from the Government and support for capital investment.
 There has been considerable capital investment in the fire service in recent years to develop a number of important new initiatives. That investment will continue to cover the full range of challenges and responsibilities faced by fire and rescue authorities, with the exception, as I pointed out in my earlier contribution, of the new challenge of anti-terrorist work. We are making substantial provision for that over a three-year period, and that will cover training and other arrangements that impose revenue costs, as well as the capital costs of the equipment. 
 I mentioned that we are in discussion with CACFOA and the LGA about the long-term revenue implications of responding to such incidents, which is a pretty clear indication that we are open-minded on the issue. We have said that we shall meet the costs, and we are doing so. That is why we do not believe that the amendments are necessary. Those provisions are already in place.

Richard Younger-Ross: Will Minister clarify something? I am thinking of a circumstance where full-time crews from Exeter and Torquay are called to
 a major incident near Bristol, for example. Consequently, the retained crews from my constituency or that of the hon. Member for East Devon would be called out and have to work extra shifts, which would be an additional cost. Would that be covered by what the Minister is talking about?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot give a precise answer to that, but there are two considerations. First, such situations will happen in any case. An authority that has a substantial number of retained firefighters will probably be under greater pressure and be expected to turn out more regularly in circumstances where there are substantial other pressures, whether those are fires, road traffic accidents or emergencies. That is part of the normal process and we would expect it to be covered.
 In relation to the new dimension programme—the anti-terrorist provisions—we have accepted that the area is one of new investment for capital and revenue. We have made generous contributions to ensure that the necessary equipment can be acquired, that staff can be trained and that they can be committed. Many Members of this House will have seen the extensive deployment that took place, last September, during the anti-terrorist exercise at Bank underground station in London, when that mass decontamination equipment was in active use, and on public display, for the first time. That is part of the process and we are funding it entirely. 
Richard Younger-Ross indicated dissent.

Nick Raynsford: I do not know why the hon. Gentleman shakes his head. That is a fact. The Government are funding substantially the necessary investment to ensure that there is enhanced resilience in our fire and rescue services to cope with such pressures, and I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that.
 The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there is a trade-off between the different services and benefits. The high-volume pumping equipment that has been provided as part of the new dimension programme will be helpful to authorities in their normal function of responding to flooding. That will be a bonus because they will receive the equipment without having to acquire it for themselves. That is one of the spin-offs. The hon. Gentleman should be slightly more realistic and recognise that the Government have been extremely generous in funding that necessary provision. We accept that it is right and proper to do so, but we were a little surprised at the response, which implied that we are being mean-spirited in not giving an absolute guarantee to reimburse authorities for every item of expenditure. 
 Turning to council tax, it is right to emphasise that we expect all fire and rescue authorities, as well as all other authorities, to budget prudently. The public will not accept continuing large and unreasonable council tax increases or demands, and they expect all authorities to ensure that they deliver value for money. The Government have continued to invest substantially in public services. That is a different picture from the one that we saw when the 
 Conservatives were in power and, year after year, we saw grants to public authorities—

Edward O'Hara: Order. I must call the Minister to order. He is straying.

Nick Raynsford: I was enjoying myself, Mr. O'Hara. I have made the point, and there is no need to extend the Opposition's agony by reminding them of their inadequate provision.
 The amendments are not necessary. There is more than adequate provision, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that it would be sensible to withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: The Minister's last remarks, coupled with his enthusiasm for the words ''efficiency and effectiveness'', make me wonder about the use of those words.
 The Minister seems to be saying that in relation to terrorism or new dimension, as new Labour likes to call it, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is paying for the equipment and that it will pay the training costs, so there is no need to worry about the marginal additional revenue implications. I can accept that to some extent because I imagine that, following the sort of major incident that we are envisaging, liberal financial support would be doled out, through the Bellwin formula, to those affected. I am sure that such matters would be dealt with in the case of a very major event. The problem is with events that are pretty large but not large enough for the Bellwin scale, which, from memory, I believe is 1 per cent. of an authority's costs exceeding 1 per cent. of an authority's annual budget. 
 To a large extent, I can accept what the Minister is saying about new dimension. What he has not done is explain why the ODPM's generosity, as he puts it, of should not be enshrined in the Bill and why the work of addressing the new dimension risk—buying, maintaining and resourcing the equipment—should not be overtly and explicitly paid for by the Secretary of State. There is no need for that in the order before us, but we do not know what orders the Minister might have it in mind to produce in future. 
 The Minister has not addressed amendment No. 33, which refers not to the grandiose canvas of anti-terrorism, but to a slightly more mundane event that we might think of as an emergency but which, certainly where I come from, is, sadly, routine—flooding every year or couple of years. In those cases, in which it will be appropriate for some authorities to acquire, hold and operate specialist equipment, there is no mechanism for a fair recovery of those standing costs. There is no mechanism whereby an authority holding special equipment and specialising in flood rescue, for example, can share the burden of cost with a group of authorities benefiting from it. 
 I would prefer those arrangements to be made voluntarily from the bottom upwards, but we must deal with clause 9, which provides for the Secretary of State to confer those functions from the top downwards. Amendment No. 33 simply asks that 
 with the functions goes a method for recovering the costs incurred.

Nick Raynsford: We have already put in place arrangements for financing new dimension. We have an existing funding mechanism that helps authorities to meet costs, which is a subject of continuing discussion between authorities, the LGA and ourselves. There is no need for the Bill to have any separate provision for that.
 We are working from the bottom up, because the hon. Gentleman knows that, in order to achieve exactly what he wants, we have asked authorities to work together voluntarily through regional management boards to put in place the arrangements for mutual aid and support for reinforcement. We have also made provision for the Secretary of State to act if they fail. It would be irresponsible to ignore the possibility that they will not work. The public would not forgive us if we had failed to put in place appropriately robust arrangements to ensure effective resilience.

Philip Hammond: The Minister again tells us that the powers in the Bill will be used only if something else fails. That assurance is not in the Bill, and he can give whatever reassurance he likes about how he intends to use those powers, but it is the duty of the Committee to consider the Bill.
 I recognise that, although the amendments address an issue, they are too widely drafted. For example, they would require complicated arrangements for the mutual and on-request assistance that the proposed draft order envisages. That is not entirely appropriate, so I hope to return with better-drafted amendments on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: As I have said, the power of the Secretary of State as exercised in the proposed draft order is no problem at all, but we must consider the possibility that a Secretary of State will use the powers in clause 9 to take a different approach, creating obligations on individual fire authorities that are more wide ranging and not necessarily exercised with the consent, or at the request of, the fire authorities in whose area they operate.
 I also have some questions to ask the Minister about the proposed draft order that he has circulated to you, Mr. O'Hara, and to members of the Committee. In paragraph 3, there is an obligation on a fire and rescue authority 
''for removing contaminants from people and capturing any water used to remove such contaminants''.
 There is no wider responsibility for the containment or decontamination of things, as opposed to people, or for the containment of the spread of contaminants in the air. Is another authority to be responsible for that, and where is the demarcation? That might be a rather messy demarcation. 
 Article 4 of the order refers to protecting people from serious harm 
''in the event of a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped in its area''.
 I am at a loss to know what is meant by 
''a serious threat that one or more persons has been trapped''.
 I asked myself the question in several different tones of voice this morning and I still cannot determine what it means. Is it a threat that one or more persons is trapped in a serious way, or is it a real threat as opposed to a hoax threat? The word ''serious'' does not seem clear or to add much to the order. Perhaps the Minister can explain that. 
 Most importantly, will the Minister explain what is envisaged by article 6? That gives a fire and rescue authority the responsibility for making 
''provision for the purpose of rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of . . .
(b) a major transport accident at sea, where it is the nearest fire and rescue authority to the accident.''
 It defines the sea as 
''the territorial sea of the United Kingdom.''
 As I understand it, the provision is an innovation if it means that coastal fire and rescue authorities have prime responsibility for rescuing people at sea up to 12 miles from the coast. At present, that is a responsibility of Her Majesty's Coastguard, which in practice relies enormously on the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. The RNLI is manned almost entirely by volunteers and funded entirely by voluntary subscription. I am concerned that, in placing a statutory obligation on fire and rescue authorities, the Minister risks undermining the RNLI's long and proud voluntary tradition. I would be alarmed at the prospect of anything in that direction. 
 The issue clearly affects the coastguard and the RNLI. As might be expected, no one at HM Coastguard was particularly anxious to speak to a member of Her Majesty's Opposition on the subject until they had checked with their superiors. However, I was able to establish during the lunch break that, as far as senior RNLI officials could confirm on the hoof, the RNLI has not been consulted about the measure. Nobody has spoken to it about the implications of the extension of a statutory duty on that organisation. 
 I should be interested in what the Minister can tell me about his consultations with Her Majesty's Coastguard, through the Department for Transport, and with the RNLI, so that the Committee can be clear that, in creating a statutory responsibility, we will not undermine a very well functioning, voluntary structure. That would give financial donors and those who risk their lives every day to provide the service on a voluntary basis the impression that they need not worry if they do not fulfil such a duty because the Government have designated a state organisation that will have to do so in their stead.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is full of fears and anxieties that the Government have malign
 intentions. I hope to disabuse him of those forms of paranoia.
 The clause gives the Secretary of State an order-making power to confer a duty on the fire and rescue service to respond to emergencies other than fires and road traffic accidents. The order may also direct fire and rescue authorities as to how they should plan, equip for and respond to such emergencies. The proposed draft order sets out that the new duties should cover chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear incidents, serious flooding, incidents requiring major search and rescue and major non-road traffic incidents. It may also require an authority to respond to an emergency that has arisen outside its own area. We dealt with all that in an earlier discussion. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked whether the wider responsibilities for decontamination would be covered by other bodies. That is an important issue, and my Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are involved in discussions. Both Departments will issue guidance shortly. It will cover decontamination more generally and, in the case of ODPM responsibilities, decontamination in buildings. Those are ongoing responsibilities. 
 Primary responsibility for buildings will rest with local authorities, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would expect. The role of the fire and rescue service will be to deal with mass contamination incidents and to provide a mass decontamination service. I have already mentioned the exercise at Bank underground station, in which the kit was used. The hon. Gentleman will have seen that it was used in a way that ensured not only that individuals brought out from the underground could go through the decontamination unit, but that the water flowing off was kept in by a bung so that there was no risk of wider contamination. That is all part of the provision of a service to deal with contamination.

Philip Hammond: Will there be a duplication of decontamination equipment, with local authorities also being financed to hold equipment to decontaminate buildings? Surely it would make sense at a later stage—obviously it cannot be the first line of response—to deploy the fire and rescue service expertise and equipment in support of the local authority.

Nick Raynsford: The considerations involved in responding to an emergency in which individuals have been exposed to a major contaminant and those involved in the longer-term task of cleaning particular buildings or places that may have been affected by contamination are very different. I ask the hon. Gentleman to wait until we issue the guidance. I have said that we will do so in the reasonably near future, but I cannot give a precise date at this stage.
 The hon. Gentleman's second question was on the wording of article 4 of the proposed draft order, which has been issued for consultation. We will be happy to listen to his and others' views on whether we have got the wording right. My interpretation, for what it is worth, is that in circumstances such as those described in the order—a ''landslide'' or 
''the collapse of a building, tunnel or other structure''—
 there may well be a considerable degree of uncertainty as to whether someone has been trapped. Therefore, the concept of a serious risk that someone is trapped seems to me to be a basis for an assessment. However, I accept that it is not a final document; it is simply a working draft. We will more than happily listen to any representations that the hon. Gentleman chooses to make on the order. 
 The hon. Gentleman's third question was on article 6(1)(b), which deals with rescue at sea. I should say straight away that it is in no way our intention to undermine or reduce the roles and obligations and important work of the RNLI and the coastguard service. They are both highly respected and perform a hugely important function. We think that they should continue to do so. However, the hon. Gentleman must recognise that resources could be stretched by a major disaster. In those circumstances, if the fire and rescue service could provide support and assistance or act in a way that would help to save lives, it would be unfortunate if it did not do so. This is not something new. The Fire Services Act 1947 already provides for the fire service, as it was then designated, to contribute towards rescue at sea in certain circumstances.

Philip Hammond: The point is that the document appears to give the fire and rescue authority the lead obligation. It states:
''A fire and rescue authority must make provision for the purpose of rescuing people and protecting them from serious harm in the event of''
 an ''accident at sea'', but not for the purpose of assisting the other rescue bodies in a really major incident. 
 As the Minister will know, the danger of creep of statutory services into areas where voluntary services have been active is that people become lazy; they start to rely on the fact that the statutory services have an obligation to provide something, and feel that they no longer need to dip into their pockets to support its provision voluntarily.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has got it all wrong. We are discussing a complex world, in which incidents may need a multi-agency response, and in which preparing to provide the necessary resources and skills to rescue people in an emergency should be welcomed rather than viewed as a threat.
 I shall give the hon. Gentleman an example of the current arrangements in respect of the Solent, where there is a multi-agency approach to dealing with emergencies. Such emergencies might include environmental problems—in which the Environment Agency would be involved—but the Hampshire fire and rescue service is also a key player, and can contribute significantly to dealing with any such incident. That is common sense and is part of the overall preparedness that we are putting in place to cope with the wide range of eventualities for which, sadly, we must make provision in today's world.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister specifically address my question about consulting the coastguard and the RNLI prior to laying the instrument?

Nick Raynsford: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman at this point whether there has been prior consultation with those bodies. However, the document is a draft for consultation, and if the RNLI or the Maritime and Coastguard Agency have observations, I am sure that they will make them, and we will be happy to consider them before we issue the final document.

Richard Younger-Ross: I support the point made by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. He has hit on an important problem that will occur if fire authority duties creep into new areas—[Interruption.] The word ''creep'' was used earlier by the Minister. We would not disagree that it is reasonable for a fire authority to have a fire tender in a port or a dock to be used for putting out fires from the water. However, in small coastal towns such as Teignmouth—not ''Teenmouth''—a voluntary organisation works very well. When there are incidents such as floods—one happened at Hazelwood park—conflict arises between the different services. There is a danger that the order will instruct fire authorities to provide boats or rubber dinghies or more services than at present. As a result, the fire service may expend resources on services that are provided more than adequately by organisations such as the RNLI.

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman exaggerates the scenario. It is important that the fire and rescue service considers the contribution that it can make to a range of potential emergencies. We would not be doing our duty if we did not ensure that that very important service was not only helped and equipped to cope with emergencies, but encouraged to think creatively about the contribution that it can make. However, as a result of the publication of the Bill, we do not expect all fire and rescue services to be rushing out immediately to see whether they should be acquiring large quantities of new kit to do things that they have not previously done.
 We expect the fire service to be thinking intelligently, thoughtfully and creatively about how the services that it offers can mesh with those provided by others to meet particular crises such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. That is a sensible way forward. However, I again remind him that the whole provision for mass decontamination and other new-dimension investment has been funded by the ODPM. We are committed not just to meeting the capital costs, but to providing ongoing funding of associated revenue costs. 
 We are obviously in dialogue with fire and rescue authorities on many other issues, and we touched on the procurement of the Firelink radio communication system. Once again it is the ODPM that is meeting the cost of providing that equipment to ensure that all fire and rescue authorities have interoperable equipment to the highest possible standard to ensure that they do their job to the best of their ability. We do not shirk from our responsibility to fund the fire and rescue service properly. I assure the hon. Member for 
 Teignbridge that if special needs and special provisions were not being adequately met we would want to consider whether there was a case for additional funding from Government. 
 Obviously, we expect fire and rescue authorities to contribute. After all, they are fire and rescue authorities in their own right, and not simply agents of government. It is, therefore, appropriate for them to make a contribution, but we have not been slow in meeting our responsibilities for additional investment to cope with emergencies. I hope that both the hon. Member for Teignbridge and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge recognise that the clause is an important and new provision defining the hugely important role of the fire and rescue service in respect of emergencies. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Directions relating to particular

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 58, in
clause 10, page 6, line 20, after 'direction', insert 
 'in circumstances specified in the direction'.
 I do not intend to press the amendment to a vote. It was intended to be part of a group of amendments, the remainder of which have not been selected. That leaves amendment No. 58 somewhat stranded and isolated. The intention was to change in a fundamental way what clause 10 aims to do. I now understand that it would be more appropriate to move a new clause and to delete clause 10 on Report, rather than try to amend it in such a radical way. However, I should like the opportunity to explain in a clause stand part debate our concerns and the direction in which we will want to go when we propose a new clause on Report.

Edward O'Hara: Does any hon. Member wish to speak to the amendment?

Philip Hammond: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Clause 10 gives the Secretary of State powers to direct an individual fire or incident. That is an astonishing power. I do not imagine that the Secretary of State envisages exercising it personally. I would certainly have some reservations about the Deputy Prime Minister sitting in the basement of 26 Whitehall pushing little wooden flags around a plan of the English regions. If we moved in that direction, I would have an even greater concern about the Secretary of State for Health taking to himself the power to intervene in individual operations.

Edward O'Hara: Order. The hon. Gentleman might also be concerned about the Chairman calling him to order.

Philip Hammond: I constantly have that concern, Mr. O'Hara, and I congratulate you on your swiftness. The usual tactic is to get in and out of the digression so quickly as to have moved on before alerting the Chairman.
 We must understand that the Secretary of State will not personally exercise the powers; he will delegate them to somebody. So we need to understand more precisely what the Government have in mind. At the risk of being accused of paranoia—the Minister can tell me if I am wrong—I suspect that he will delegate the powers to a senior regional fire officer in each region who will exercise them on his behalf in respect of an individual fire or emergency scene. 
 The Minister will say that the power is needed only to deal with the most extreme emergencies. Again, I must ask him why the arrangements being put in place in the Civil Contingencies Bill are not adequate enough to deal with super-emergencies? It is my understanding that the purpose of that Bill is to deal with major incidents and to put in place an overarching command structure on the scale, and with the resources, required to deal with such emergencies.

Edward O'Hara: Order. My understanding is that as the Civil Contingencies Bill has not yet reached Second Reading in the upper House, it is not in order for members of the Committee to discuss it. They may talk about the text, but not the Bill.

Philip Hammond: That presents me with a slight challenge, Mr. O'Hara, but as it happens I have a copy of the text.

Edward O'Hara: What I have said also explains why the other amendments were not selected.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for that clarification, Mr. O'Hara. It was indicated to me that the other amendments were not selected because they sought to impose a too radical change on the direction of the clause by undermining its purpose and that they were, in effect, wrecking amendments. Perhaps we can consider that another time.
 I do not intend to discuss the Civil Contingencies Bill. I simply want to understand why the powers are necessary in this Bill, given that it is the Government's intention, in relation not only to the fire service but to all the other services that need to respond to a major emergency, to have an overarching set of provisions in another Bill. The Minister said that it was necessary, for reasons of symmetry, to have measures in the Fire and Rescue Services Bill that reflected those that might be contained in that other Bill, but I take it that Ministers do not intend to reform police Acts and other legislation merely to reflect the arrangements that might be made for civil contingencies. I cannot quite see the argument, so I should like to understand why the power needs to be duplicated in this Bill. 
 Opposition Members advocate an advance plan structure, not an ad hoc power of intervention in the name of the Secretary of State. We of course accept that a command structure needs to be in place to deal with the largest-scale emergencies and that there must be clear obligations on all responders to respond 
 appropriately. As far as I am concerned, however, that is what the other Bill is designed to do, and as far as I can tell, it will be perfectly satisfactory for its purpose. 
 Like me, most of the people to whom I have spoken do not relish the thought of a duplication possibly complicating the situation. The powers of direction of individual fire and emergency incidents that the Deputy Prime Minister is given in this Bill might conflict with, or cut across, the powers of the senior officer who is responsible under other legislation. We will not vote against the clause, but I will attempt to replace it on Report with a more structured clause that does the same thing, but which achieves that by preparation in advance rather than by giving the Secretary of State the power to intervene in the middle of the night. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister's interventions in the middle of the night in respect of the fire and rescue service have not always been a great success.

Nick Raynsford: I understand the hon. Gentleman's lack of certainty about the relationship between this Bill and the Civil Contingencies Bill. I shall be frank: when legislation was evolving, we considered that it might be appropriate for the emergency provisions to be covered entirely in the Civil Contingencies Bill. However, we concluded that it was right and proper to make a full statement on the role and responsibilities of fire and rescue authorities in this Bill. As the first such Bill for more than 50 years, it is appropriate for it to reflect the current expectations of the fire and rescue service. That is why we have the Fire and Rescue Services Bill but not a police Bill. The Civil Contingencies Bill has nothing to do with this Bill, but it is obviously important that their provisions dovetail.
 The Civil Contingencies Bill covers a much wider range of circumstances than simply terrorist or catastrophic incidents, but the incidents covered by clause 10 are narrowly conceived. We are thinking only of major catastrophic incidents, such as a huge and devastating fire or a terrorist event on the scale of what happened in New York and Washington on 11 September 2001.

Philip Hammond: Where does it say that?

Nick Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is always quick to jump up and ask questions before I have even been able to explain how we intend to use particular powers. If he can restrain himself for a moment, I hope to reassure him.
 We are talking about major incidents, when the normal Cabinet Office briefing room procedures for dealing with serious incidents would inevitably be implemented. Ministerial responsibility would rest with the appropriate Secretary of State, while operational responsibility would rest with the relevant senior officers in the relevant services. That could be the area's chief police officer or, if it was simply a fire incident, a senior fire officer. It is important to recognise that the Secretary of State would have a potential and significant role and would want to make a statement to the House—I hope that 
 the hon. Gentleman is listening, because my words are chosen carefully—before exercising the powers in the Bill. 
 Those are the circumstances in which we envisage direction being used to deal with extreme emergencies, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman recognises that the powers will, we hope, be used only very occasionally, if ever. However, it would be irresponsible to fail to make provision for the kind of extreme emergency that we have, sadly, seen across the Atlantic in the past two and a half years and which may occur here. That is why we are making prudent and appropriate provision, although it will be used only in extreme circumstances. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be content for the clause to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Power to respond to other eventualities

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in
clause 11, page 6, line 38, at end insert 
 'by acquisition or by agreement with third parties who own or control such equipment'.
 The amendment should not detain us, but there are some specific issues to clarify. It deals with the wide discretion that is given to local authorities in choosing to prepare to respond to other eventualities. We seek to clarify the provision that gives authorities the power 
''to secure the provision of equipment.''
 The Minister referred to the clause this morning, and I interpreted the reference to the authority's power to secure any equipment in pursuing 
''any action it considers appropriate . . . in response to an event or situation''
 or 
''for the purpose of enabling action to be taken in response to such an event or situation''
 to mean that the authority could buy and maintain specialist equipment and perhaps enter into arrangements with third parties with access to heavy-lifting equipment or high-volume pumping equipment. All of that is perfectly sensible. The amendment is intended to address the issue for the avoidance of doubt, as the lawyers like to say—indeed, the Minister shamefully allowed that phrase to appear in the Fire Services Act 2003, although it does not usually creep into legislation. 
 I want to be clear that subsection (3) does not imply a power to requisition property. The amendment would require the fire and rescue authority to acquire property or secure it by agreement with a third party. It would not have the power to requisition it. Just for the avoidance of doubt, I will happily withdraw the amendment once the Under-Secretary stands up and says, ''Yes, that is the case''. 
 The Minister of State complicated the issue this morning when he suggested that the power to secure 
 the provision of equipment was not to be interpreted in the way that I understood it, but was actually a power that would allow fire authorities to fix smoke alarms to people's ceilings. I suppose that that is securing equipment, after a fashion, but it certainly is not pursuant to the obligations in subsection (1), which is clearly pursuant to an obligation in clause 6. 
 I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary confirmed that there is no power of compulsion in clause 11(3) and clarified how it allows equipment acquisition for the purposes specified—for example, the acquisition of inshore rescue craft, if that is appropriate—and at the same time the provision of smoke detectors.

Phil Hope: The amendment gives us an opportunity to clarify a point that came up earlier. I shall deal with that first. I planned to do that under amendments Nos. 63 and 64, but I shall make it clear now how the clause can be used to purchase smoke alarms.
 Clause 11 is part of the answer, but I am advised that the power in clause 5 
''to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions''
 would, given the duty in clause 6(1), include the power to purchase and provide equipment such as smoke alarms.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary, but the problem is that clause 5 applies only to combined fire authorities and not clause 1 fire authorities. Clause 5 specifically refers to an authority
''constituted by a scheme under section 2 or a scheme to which section 4 applies''.
 So what do the county brigades do?

Phil Hope: As I said, clause 11 is only part of the answer. Parts of the Bill allow fire and rescue authorities of all kinds to purchase and distribute smoke alarms if they so wish. I was trying to explain why clause 11 is relevant, but other clauses are also relevant. Fire and rescue authorities can be confident in doing what they have done previously—they will be empowered to do so in future as well.
 Amendment No. 62 would specify how fire and rescue authorities could secure equipment in order to discharge their powers under clause 11. It would limit the authorities to securing provision by acquisition or agreement with third parties who own or control such equipment. It covers particular ways of securing equipment. 
 Clause 11 gives clear statutory authority to fire and rescue authorities to equip themselves for and respond to incidents that pose a risk to life and to the environment. The fire and rescue service welcomes such clarity. Adding what appears to be an avoidance of doubt measure in amendment No. 62 would, frankly, do the reverse: it would create uncertainty about the powers of the fire and rescue authority to secure provision under other parts of the Bill: for example, clauses 7 and 8. 
 I assure the hon. Gentleman that the clause is not a power to requisition. In fact, I am unaware of any 
 circumstance where there is doubt about the ability of a fire and rescue authority to secure equipment if it has a statutory function to discharge. I hope that with that reassurance he will agree that there is no need for the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I am still a little unclear about where county brigades find the power to distribute smoke alarms, but no doubt the Under-Secretary can let me know about that in due course. I am sure that he will find it in the Bill somewhere but, given that we have all looked for it, it is not immediately obvious where it is.
 I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's assurance that there is no requisitioning power in the clause. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in
clause 11, page 6, line 39, after '(1)', insert '(a)'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 64, in
clause 11, page 6, line 40, at end add— 
 '(5) The power conferred by subsection (1)(b) may be exercised outside as well as within the authority's area in respect of events or situations relating to functions conferred on the authority by the Secretary of State under section 9 with a requirement that such functions be discharged outside the authority's area. 
 (6) Nothing in this section shall be taken to grant immunity from criminal or civil action in respect of actions taken by an authority under subsection (1).'.

Philip Hammond: Amendment No. 63 would limit the power that may be conferred by the Secretary of State in clause 11(4) to those circumstances described in subsection (1)(a). In other words, it would limit the ability to respond to an event outside the authority's own area to hot action—action in response to an event or situation specified in subsection (2).
 Amendment No. 64 would to insert two new subsections in clause 11. The first of those has been numbered (5) and would limit that power to those functions that have been conferred on the authority under clause 9 and in respect of which the Secretary of State has conferred on the authority an obligation to operate outside its area. The significance of that is that, without such a provision, subsection (1), which allows a fire and rescue authority to take any action that it considers appropriate 
''for the purpose of enabling action to be taken in response to . . . an event or situation''
 described in subsection (2), together with the extra-territoriality provisions of subsection (4), raise the bizarre spectre of one fire authority being able to establish facilities in the area of another. That would be not just to discharge a function for which the Secretary of State has given them responsibility in that area under clause 9, but to discharge a function that they have chosen to take on under the discretionary powers of clause 11. 
 The wide-ranging power, linked with the ability to operate outside the area, creates that odd situation. Limiting the exercise of that power in non-hot pursuit 
 situations, in forward-looking planning and enabling situations, to the areas of function that the Secretary of State has conferred under clause 9(2) limits that satisfactorily. I hope that I have explained that in a way that the Under-Secretary understands and that he will be able to respond to the concern that I have outlined.

Phil Hope: I will do my best. If I have understood the hon. Gentleman's amendments correctly, amendment No. 63 would ensure that the powers under clause 11(1)(a) remain the same, but it would remove the subsection (1)(b) powers. Amendment No. 64 would restrict the powers under subsection (1)(b) to events and situations relating to clause 9 functions. It would also add that anything done under clause 11 be open to civil or criminal actions.
 Before I go on, I will clarify the point about smoke alarms. I said that clause 5 gives the power to existing combined fire authorities. Other fire and rescue authorities already have the powers under section 1(1)(i) of the Local Government Act 1972. I should have said that before and I hope that we have finally put that to rest. 
 As I said when discussing amendment No. 62, the purpose of clause 11 is to provide fire and rescue authorities with the power to equip and to respond to situations where they believe that there is a risk to life and the environment. In making those decisions, a fire and rescue authority will take account of local risks and priorities as identified in its integrated risk management plan. Subsection (1)(a) gives fire and rescue authorities the power to respond in those circumstances. Subsection (1)(b) provides the fire and rescue authority with the power to take action to enable that response, in other words to plan and equip. 
 Amendment No. 64 would restrict the ability of a fire and rescue authority to equip itself under clause 11(1)(b) to emergencies defined in clause 9. Therefore, an authority would not be in a position to equip itself to deal with events and situations that its local risk assessment had identified were not covered by its core functions. A fire and rescue authority may wish to use its power under clause 11(1)(b) to buy, for example, special animal rescue equipment, as Kent has done, to rescue trapped farm animals. Under amendment No. 64, they would not be able to buy such equipment, except under subsection (1)(a), once such an event had taken place, and then only in order to respond to that specific emergency. 
 An order under clause 9 can already require a fire and rescue authority to make provision in order to carry out functions outside its area.

Philip Hammond: Will the Under-Secretary give way?

Phil Hope: Before I move on to the area point?

Philip Hammond: It is the area point that is critical. We are talking about limiting the power of an authority to act outside its own area. I have no problem with Kent fire brigade buying specialist animal rescue equipment and offering that service
 outside its area, but I would expect that to be done under other arrangements in the Bill at the request of other authorities, not to have Kent fire service rampaging across southern England offering a service without being requested to do so. That seems to be allowed for under the clause.

Phil Hope: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is important to have similar powers, in relation to subsection (2), to allow fire and rescue authorities to prepare to respond to situations that they have identified as local priorities. He mentioned existing schemes. Existing mutual schemes deal with the fire and rescue authority's core functions. However, if a fire and rescue authority were performing a rescue in relation to an event under clause 11, it would be undesirable for it to stop because the event crossed a fire and rescue authority boundary.
 I shall give an example. In an area with a large inland waterway, a fire and rescue authority may be responding to water-bound life-threatening incidents. It would be inappropriate to call a halt to such rescue simply because the person in question had drifted out of the authority's area and it was not empowered to cross the boundary to effect a rescue. In order to provide such a service, it would need to plan ahead. 
 I detect another element of paranoia about regionalism. We are rooted in the fears of the hon. Gentleman. I am trying to give him reassurance that the provisions are nothing to do with regionalism. We are discussing a sensible measure to bring about the sort of change that local authorities and fire and rescue authorities believe they need to provide a better service. 
 Amendment No. 64 would also add an unhelpful ''for the avoidance of doubt'' provision. It sets out that nothing in clause 11 should be taken to grant immunity from criminal or civil action in respect of action taken by an authority under subsection (1). The amendment is unnecessary. Fire and rescue authorities are answerable for their actions in law. Amendment No. 64 would cast doubt on whether the actions of the fire and rescue authority to discharge other functions under the Bill would be immune from civil or criminal action. 
 With those points of clarification, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Philip Hammond: I am sorry; I should have said that amendment No. 64 was intended to be a probing amendment to establish that nothing in the Bill implied immunity. The Under-Secretary has confirmed that.
 I am not sure that I followed the Under-Secretary's argument. I specifically framed the amendments to allow that in a reactive, emergency situation, an authority would be able to operate outside as well as inside its boundaries, specifically to avoid the situation that he posited of a rescue in progress coming to a boundary and having to stop. That would, of course, be absurd. 
 The amendment deals with the wide-ranging power for an authority to take any action it considers appropriate extra-territorially. Two neighbouring 
 authorities may have very different views of their priorities. They may have different agendas and, in relation to discretionary activities, one may choose to focus on one thing, and the other on another. It does not seem reasonable that an authority should have the right to pursue its agenda, other than in a live incident situation, in the area of another authority under the clause. 
 There will be many other provisions of the Bill, including clause 12, under which it may be appropriate for an authority that specialises in providing a certain service to offer it in another area, either to the fire authority by way of assistance or discharging a function, or to members of the public under clause 12. It may be a service for which the authority wants to charge.

Phil Hope: It was very clear.

Philip Hammond: It may be very clear to the Under-Secretary because he has the benefit of not only the Bill, but the knowledge in his own mind, although I would not be so sure that he has the benefit of the knowledge in the Deputy Prime Minister's mind. We must consider the Bill independently of the personalities or intentions of the individual Ministers who address us and examine what could be done within the very wide scope of the clause.
 We are debating a relatively narrow point—the pursuit of a discretionary area of activity by one authority in the area of another authority. If we want to defend the principle that the primary responsibility for discharge of functions in an area lies with that area's fire and rescue authority, the Bill is unsatisfactory. The Under-Secretary has not entirely convinced me. However, in the interests of making more progress on top of the good progress already made this afternoon, I do not intend to press the amendment. I will try more carefully to consider what the Minister has said and revert if it seems necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 - Other services

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in
clause 12, page 7, line 4, at end insert 
 'so long as such provision does not impair the authority's discharge of the functions conferred on it by sections 6, 7, 8 and 9'.
 This is a simple amendment. The clause provides fire and rescue authorities with the power to provide the services of their employees and equipment for any purpose that they consider appropriate, inside or outside their area. It refers to commercial services that might be provided by the authority, such as pumping water, filling ponds and emptying swimming pools. It is useful to have those resources available for the benefit of the community, and we have no difficulty with the proposals because the services are being provided to individuals and the authority is acting no differently from any other service provider. 
 The amendment was tabled to emphasise that those services should never be provided at the expense of the core functions that are imposed on the fire authorities. We cannot have every appliance from the Wiltshire and Swindon fire authority pumping out the Greenwich swimming pool of the Minister of State when buildings all over Wiltshire are burning down. 
 I am sure that the Under-Secretary agrees with the sentiment of the amendment, and if he can assure us that the performance of the services under clause 12 must always be secondary to the statutory functions of the fire and rescue authority, it may not be necessary to pursue the amendment.

Phil Hope: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires. Amendment No. 65 would restrict the power under clause 12 for fire and rescue authorities to provide services extraneous to their core functions as set out in clauses 6 to 9, and it would mean that an authority could take on a service only as long as it did not adversely affect its core duties under those clauses. The amendment is unnecessary; it is implicit that an authority must make provision for the efficient discharge of its core duties as set out in those clauses, and it would be in possible breach of its legal obligation were it not to do so for whatever reason.
 Fire and rescue authorities already undertake activities that are of benefit to the wider community; for example, as the hon. Gentleman described, using pumping equipment to help to drain a village or community pond, but not my right hon. Friend's non-existent swimming pool.

Nick Raynsford: The Thames is my swimming pool.

Phil Hope: And it is now a much cleaner swimming pool in which one can bathe, thanks to our environmental improvement services.
 As with other non-fire services, this type of community service is currently provided using discretionary powers under section 3(1)(e) of the 1947 Act. The clause provides the authorities with the power to use their equipment or personnel for any purposes that they believe appropriate and wherever they choose. That power complements other powers in clause 11 that provide the authorities with discretion to equip for and respond to events or situations where there is a risk to people or the environment. 
 I hope that, given that reassurance, the hon. Gentleman will seek to withdraw the amendment.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for his reassuring words. He has clarified the position and it is good to have that in the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Reinforcement schemes

Philip Hammond: I beg to move amendment No. 56, in
clause 13, page 7, line 16, after 'incurred', insert 
 'in providing such assistance under subsection (2) or'.

Edward O'Hara: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 67, in
clause 13, page 7, line 17, at end insert 
 'and any liability to any third party arising from the operation of the scheme.'.

Philip Hammond: The hon. Member for Teignbridge, intentionally or otherwise, has caused me a momentary difficulty, and I look forward to coming back to the purpose of amendment No. 66 when we are finally fortunate enough to get to—

Nick Raynsford: On a point of order, Mr. O'Hara. We may be approaching the 5 o'clock break for our proceedings, and I that believe the Opposition wish to make a little further progress. I seek your guidance as to whether it would be in order for us to go a little beyond 5 o'clock if necessary. I hope that it will not be, but I thought that it might be helpful to the Committee to understand that at this stage, and helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

Edward O'Hara: It is for the Committee to determine that. We must wait till 5 o'clock.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful to you, Mr. O'Hara, and even more grateful to the Minister. Mutual reinforcement has taken place. We have shown that it can work very well.
 The purpose of amendment No. 56 is specific. Subsection (3) is narrowly worded. It allows cost recovery, not for actions taken to operate the scheme, but only for 
''expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme''—
 a reinforcement scheme. That may seem a subtle distinction, but I take it to mean that there can be recovery of the expenses of setting up control and forward-planning arrangements, but not of the marginal costs of carrying out the reinforcement—going into another fire authority's territory. 
 Amendment No. 56 proposes that the authority providing the assistance can recover the costs incurred in providing that assistance. It could be full costs or marginal costs; I have an open mind on that. However, an issue here needs to be addressed. This is a probing amendment, because it is not clear what the provision means, but the amendment would allow the scheme to define—because there will be a reinforcement scheme—what costs arising from the operation of the scheme could be recovered. 
 Amendment No. 67 touches on something slightly different. It provides for the apportionment of liability arising from the operation of the scheme. That also seems to be an issue in what are, as the Minister of State said, increasingly litigious times. When a fire authority in pursuit of a reinforcement scheme moves into and operates in the area of another fire authority, is it operating as an agent of the host fire authority, and does the host fire authority retain liability for the actions of that authority, or is the liability somehow apportioned between the two authorities? 
 This is another probing amendment to give the Under-Secretary the opportunity to explain how the provision will work in practice. I know that reinforcement schemes have been around for a long 
 time and work very well in practice, but I should be grateful for the Under-Secretary's clarification.

Phil Hope: I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance he requires. Amendment No. 56 would specify that any expenses incurred in providing assistance under a reinforcement scheme could be apportioned between the participating authorities. Amendment No. 67 would then enable a reinforcement scheme to apportion between participating authorities the costs of any third-party liability arising from the operation of the scheme.
 Let me be clear about this. Clause 13(3) enables authorities to apportion costs arising from the operation of a reinforcement scheme. That is the key question about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. We do not believe that it is necessary to specify exactly which costs may be apportioned between authorities in this way. Listing specific items that are covered by the ability to apportion the costs of operating the scheme runs the risk of excluding anything that is not mentioned in the Bill.

Philip Hammond: Will the Minister explain why the phrase, ''any expenses incurred in operating the scheme'', is not better wording than that in the Bill? I know that it would remove some words, and I realise that that probably goes against the grain of some people in the drafting department, but that would seem to me to avoid any risk of confusion as to what it covers.

Phil Hope: Clause 3 refers to ''participating in the scheme'' and
''any expenses incurred in taking measures to secure the efficient operation of the scheme''.
 I think that the words ''efficient operation'' and ''participating in the scheme'' in the clause, plus the words that I have spoken this afternoon, must give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires. 
 On amendment No. 67, the law already provides for the rare situation when a fire and rescue authority is sued and another authority or third party contributed to the loss caused. Under those circumstances, it is likely that any other fire and rescue authority involved would be included in the action. In any event, an authority that is sued would be entitled to recover a proportion of any damages awarded from any third party that shares responsibility. That is covered by general legal principles.

Philip Hammond: I understand that, but that is not quite the point I am asking. I am asking whether, when an appliance from one authority moves into the area of another, as they do routinely for reinforcement at an incident or to stand by when appliances are moved out to an incident, they are legally acting as agents of the host fire authority, or acting in their own capacity extra-territorially.
 We are envisaging other situations in the Bill; for example, under clause 9(2) the Secretary of State may direct require a function to be discharged extra-territorially. We are envisaging a fire authority acting on its own account and discharging functions that have been given to it externally. This seems to be different because in a reinforcement scheme the second 
 authority is acting as the agent of the first. That is what I was hoping the Under-Secretary could confirm.

Phil Hope: The authority and the fire engine operating in the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman would be acting in their own capacity. The well-established legal principles that operate in such circumstances would then apply if someone was sued and damages had to be claimed from others.
 We are replicating in the Bill the provisions in the 1947 Act, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has worked well until now. The amendments are unnecessary, and I ask him not to press them.

Philip Hammond: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I certainly had no intention of pressing the amendments once I had received clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Philip Hammond: I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Teignbridge decided not to move amendment No. 74 because I had something rather nice to say about it. It rather neatly encapsulates the Liberal Democrat approach to a number of matters, but I have no doubt that it would now be out of order to address it. Perhaps that is why the hon. Gentleman did not move it.
 I want to address a concern that we have about clause 13 that would have been addressed by amendment No. 66. Subsection (1) states: 
''A fire and rescue authority must, so far as practicable, enter into a reinforcement scheme with other fire and rescue authorities.''
 That is an obligation—a prescription. The ''other'' fire and rescue authorities are undefined, unspecified. Unless a fire and rescue authority had entered into a reinforcement scheme with every other fire and rescue authority, which would not be necessary or practical, it would be difficult to know whether it had discharged the absolute obligation placed on it by subsection (1). 
 The suggestion that we sought to make with amendment No. 66 was that there should be a definition of the authorities with which an authority is obliged to enter into reinforcement schemes. Looking at it with a layman's eye, it seems to me that geographical contiguity would be the most appropriate criterion. Beyond that, there ought to be an ability—a permissive power—to enter into reinforcement schemes with other authorities, where appropriate. At the moment, we are placing an obligation on an authority to enter into a reinforcement scheme with bodies unspecified. That does not seem terribly satisfactory or tidy, and I was hoping that the provision could be tidied up by defining the bodies in question. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Five o'clock till Tuesday 24 February at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.